I think the notes from this work would provide a great perspective:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Annotated-New-Testament/dp/0195297709/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
Yes, I just read the review at Review of Biblical Literature here.
While we're at it, let's get their Jewish Study Bible in as well.
(I've been requesting both of these for some time...)
Ben
While we're at it, let's get their Jewish Study Bible in as well. (I've been requesting both of these for some time...) Ben
[Y]
Funny, that is where I saw it as well just a little while ago.
Lots of us have asked for this lots of times. Unfortunately it's from OUP, which Logos doesn't seem able to contract anything from these days.
Only commenting based on fgh's point, I have both this and the Jewish Study Bible. This one has some interesting comments, though nothing that might surprise you. It's in my closet, having read it (not a repeated use kind of resource). The mishnah/Talmud connects are interesting. The discussions where there's a dissonance are quite calm (i.e. the commenters could have 'gone to town' if they'd wanted to, but didn't). Just my own guesswork but I suspect they recognized there's just not a lot of 'data' from the 1st century and so not a lot to go on as to exactly where Jesus fit (and so quotes from either before or after).
But the Jewish Study Bible has a much more (OT based of course). The notes are not the depth you see in JPS commentaries, but the points quite often raise your eyebrows with a different perspective. One that I was so surprised about, I brought up in Bible class at church. And our pastor didn't blink; said yes, that's probably correct (I won't say WHAT!). So everyone else in class had to raise their eyebrows too.
And our pastor didn't blink; said yes, that's probably correct (I won't say WHAT!). So everyone else in class had to raise their eyebrows too.
I actually have the Jewish Study Bible, and I do like it a lot. You are correct not to post the quote, as it would probably send this thread into a tailspin, but I would be appreciative if you would give me the verse so that I can look it up. This seems very intriguing!
As for the authors of the Jewish New Testament Study Bible, I really like Amy-Jill Levine. I got to see her once at New Orleans Baptist Seminary's Greer-Heard Lectures, where she and Ben Witherington III seemed close, and right after that she came to speak in Birmingham. One of the most profound things that she said was that when you are born Jewish, you don't have a problem with debating about issues of the Bible because you don't have to worry about anyone saying that you are no longer Jewish. This presents a free market of ideas and healthy interpretive debate. In Christianity, sometimes if you question the status quo then your Christianity will come into question by some, and this often times stifles healthy debate and learning. She also has a great sense of humor!
And our pastor didn't blink; said yes, that's probably correct (I won't say WHAT!). So everyone else in class had to raise their eyebrows too. I actually have the Jewish Study Bible, and I do like it a lot. You are correct not to post the quote, as it would probably send this thread into a tailspin, but I would be appreciative if you would give me the verse so that I can look it up. This seems very intriguing! As for the authors of the Jewish New Testament Study Bible, I really like Amy-Jill Levine. I got to see her once at New Orleans Baptist Seminary's Greer-Heard Lectures, where she and Ben Witherington III seemed close, and right after that she came to speak in Birmingham. One of the most profound things that she said was that when you are born Jewish, you don't have a problem with debating about issues of the Bible because you don't have to worry about anyone saying that you are no longer Jewish. This presents a free market of ideas and healthy interpretive debate. In Christianity, sometimes if you question the status quo then your Christianity will come into question by some, and this often times stifles healthy debate and learning. She also has a great sense of humor!
I have the JPS Study Bible, too. PLEASE post the reference to the quote (book-chapter-verse, or which supplementary article it's in) so I can read it, too. THANKS! [:P]
I couldn't find the statement; it was in the pre-Exodus account that we were studying at the time. But it was pretty heavy-duty, especially when one looks at later Ephesians' and its possible use of the Psalms Targum.
But while I was looking, the Jewish Study Bible has quite a number of interesting statements (not controverisal):
Exodus 5. 5: This v. is best understood on the assumption that the Samaritan reading ("m'm" instead of MT "'m") is correct: Pharaoh claims that the Israelites already outnumber the Egyptians, and if they cease their labors they will increase even more-- the very thing he sought to prevent by enslaving them (1. 9- 14).
I'm fascinated with the connectivity between the DSS Biblical scrolls and the Samaritan Torah.
I couldn't find the statement; it was in the pre-Exodus account that we were studying at the time. But it was pretty heavy-duty, especially when one looks at later Ephesians' and its possible use of the Psalms Targum. But while I was looking, the Jewish Study Bible has quite a number of interesting statements (not controverisal): Exodus 5. 5: This v. is best understood on the assumption that the Samaritan reading ("m'm" instead of MT "'m") is correct: Pharaoh claims that the Israelites already outnumber the Egyptians, and if they cease their labors they will increase even more-- the very thing he sought to prevent by enslaving them (1. 9- 14). I'm fascinated with the connectivity between the DSS Biblical scrolls and the Samaritan Torah.
Are you referring to Psalm 68:18 (68:19 Hebrew; 67:19 LXX) "You received gifts by/among men" versus Paul's "He gave gifts to men" in Ephesians 4:8?
Can you at least summarize the "heavy duty" statement - if not here, you can leave me a Comment at the link from my name. Thanks!
I am curious as well, but I don't want to put you on the spot.
At the risk of sounding like the red-headed kid who walks up late to the conversation and blurts out the obvious, is it correct to make the following assumptions about these two resources? They are written by accomplished scholars who for the most part are practicing Jews and non of whom are Christian by traditional definition and which resources would be good for background and a viewpoint free from western gentile presumptions, but care would be needed in using as far as actual interpretation of the text. No antisemitic overtones intended.
free from western gentile presumptions
Their scholarly assumptions are similar to other Western scholars; their knowledge which they use for understanding includes early Jewish works - an area that few Christian scholars have chosen to learn as intimately.
care would be needed in using as far as actual interpretation of the text.
No more so than any other scholar's work. It seems to me that this is more of a problem in the OT where the Jews read the Hebrew scriptures through the lens of Jewish history and Christians read them through the lens of the Cross.
Yes, I think you are correct.
Jerry ... I think you pointed out the obvious ... who among the Logos users know even a handful of the writers, for resources in Logos? Modern or a century ago?
Most learn by reading.
This is most obvious when someone tries to get a handle on 'which commentary set', much less which commentary book. Forum members just muddle around with 'kind of ' answers since it's not clear what the questioner is even looking for.
Then, as a last gasp, they point to the conservative site for the commentary ratings. Ah yes.
And so we say the writer is not 'one of us'.
Well, that makes it a whole lot easier. Of course all the writers in the NT were jewish but what would jews know, then or now?
Oh yes, no antisemic overtones intended.
I didn't take Jerry's comments that way. I like these for their history of interpretation. I like the Jewish historical perspective. I took Jerry's comments to mean that a Christian reader would obviously have fundamental disagreements concerning Jesus. Maybe I read my own opinion into his comments.
Ultimately, the Jewish perspective, which is the perspective that everyone who lived with Jesus would have had, is important for the history of interpretation, particularly concerning the OT commentary.
At the risk of sounding like the red-headed kid who walks up late to the conversation and blurts out the obvious
[:-*] Be careful what you say about redheads around here. Jack might hear you. [:D]
Joseph,
in light of the disclaimer footnote to all your posts, let me comment on apart of your sentence that didn't sit well with me, especially as it seems to establish a very spurious truth-claim for fact - I'm rather sure you didn't mean it that way, but couldn't let this pass uncommented.
I'm 100% d'accord with your proposition "Ultimately, the Jewish perspective ... is important for the history of interpretation, particularly concerning the OT commentary."
But "the Jewish perspective, which is the perspective that everyone who lived with Jesus would have had" is something that makes my neck-hairs stand up for the following reasons:
Now NB.Mick ... that's too easy. Out here in Arizona, we have our Navajos, who DO think considerably different from 'us' (that's a complement to them!). Now of course, that's not really accurate, since you have your western Navajo and then your Eastern who think differently. But are we talking 'now' or in the 50s? They say 'we Navajo' (actually Dineh'). And we say 'the Navajo'. Obviously we're not the same and we both know it.
I have a Navajo interlinear which 'I' thought would be quite useful for younger Navajos to hold on to the Navajo language. The pastor nicely explained it was eastern Navajo and wouldn't work. Critical distinction. He did know George though (hmmm).
Now, the reason a 'jewish' perspective can be useful, is not because of a common jewish perspective. No one is that naive (I hope). Rather, it speaks to the hidden assumptions of the non-jewish writers which are not obvious until you read the 'jewish' ones.
As regards the two potential resources here, the Jewish Study Bible is the most 'unlikely' to be a middle-of-the-road jewish perspective if indeed such existed. The writer is quite comfortable climbing out on a limb and expressing the obvious. The Annotated NT is considerably different, representing a smoothed summation of centuries of thought, with useful references to various jewish writings along the way.
Now, the reason a 'jewish' perspective can be useful, is not because of a common jewish perspective. No one is that naive (I hope).
Maybe I'm just not good enough in hoping...
there is no one "Jewish perspective". Jews themselves apply the saying "three Jews four opinions" which is otherwise often used for lawyers. There are multiple Jewish perspectives in the plural, some of which may have been shared by some Jews in the first centuries. at the time when Jesus lived, there were multiple schools of ideas, like the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes... We know the different Jewish perspectives they had from some surviving manuscripts (Qumran) , descriptions in the Gospels, Josephus... but in most cases not in an exhaustive manner. Only the Pharisees as a group survived the destruction of Jerusalem. Jewish perspectives evolved over the hundreds of years between Jesus' time and today. Especially the situation that Christianity, which (as observed from the outside) started as a Jewish sect, competed with the Jews for the same group of people and later on overtook the whole Roman empire and started to marginalize the Jews, led to changes in the "Jewish perspective" - basically it seems that some held/hold it for a valid exegetical principle that if Christians read Meaning A in the OT, Jewish reading may be anything but A (however unlikely). I can to a certain extent understand how such things come about, but I don't agree with this. Jewish perspectives we read today have been shaped by Medieval scholasticism, Enlightenment, Modernism etc and the discussions about embracing these ways of thinking or defending against them. Thus they to a certain extent are far removed from the perspective of near-eastern population in the first century. Especially the question of Messianic aspects in Jewish exegesis is highly debated, but it seems that some contemporary Jews rather downplay this perspective, but there may be no conclusive view on what "everyone who lived with Jesus" held in this regard.
Ultimately, I don't disagree with you. The funny thing is that you don't seem to assume Christianity is the same. What I meant was that the Jewish Study Bible takes into account the historical Jewish perspective, by which I mean the positions taken by Jewish writings throughout the ages, while considering the original historical milieu. We read commentaries from Christian commentators which present a "conservative" or "liberal" position, but those designations clearly don't necessarily give us a real idea as to the complete positions of those authors, or the "conservative" or "liberal" positions held throughout history. Therefore a Chrisitian work doesn't necessarily present "one" view on Christianity either, but that doesn't stop commentators from writing. Look at the book of Revelation for instance.
I will point out that I did state that AJ Levine made a comment concerning the freedom with which Jews debate theological issues, which should have underpinned all of my further posts. Any claim that Jewish interpretation is not unified has to also apply to certain aspects of Christian interpretation. AJ Levine is however a first rate Jewish/Jesus scholar, and I trust that she handles the information in a responsible manner.
Ultimately, I don't disagree with you.
The funny thing is that you don't seem to assume Christianity is the same.
a Chrisitian work doesn't necessarily present "one" view on Christianity either, but that doesn't stop commentators from writing. Look at the book of Revelation for instance.
Sure. But I'd believe no-one who would claim this is THE Christian perspective that everyone shares with regards to the revelation.
Let me try to give an example. Let's assume someone suggests the "Mennonite study bible" or something like that. Or the Mennonite annotated Confessio Augustana, to keep the times synchronous. I say: bring them on!
He then writes "Ultimately, the Mennonite perspective, which is the perspective that everyone who lived with the reformers would have had, is important for the history of interpretation" I would say:
"Ultimately, the Mennonite perspective, ... is important for the history of interpretation" - yes!
but objections to: "The Mennonite perspective, which is the perspective that everyone who lived with the reformers would have had" - we know for a fact that people at these times had no unified perspective. Also, various reformers had diverse perspectives on many thing and disagreed widely. Menno Simmons and his group were one of these, but their perspectives were only part of the spectrum. And someone compiling this study notes today will not be able to go back behind the history of anabaptist persecution by the other reformers. I hope this example helps.
Any claim that Jewish interpretation is not unified has to also apply to certain aspects of Christian interpretation. AJ Levine is however a first rate Jewish/Jesus scholar, and I trust that she handles the information in a responsible manner.
I think we are in agreement here. Actually I wondered about the relatively small number of annotations the editors felt necessary and I support the conclusions of some of the thematic articles I could look into at Amazon (which seem to cover roughly a hundred pages and might in themselves be worthwile to buy the book). This really is a resource I'd like to have in Logos.
Quite right. Which is why one has to be very careful in their research of first century texts. Its easy to succumb to the temptation to over simplify things. Generalisations are a dead giveaway every time.
Hear, hear.
I skimmed through the Jewish Annotated New Testament, and while the notes look interesting and informative, because of the run-together-one-right-after-the-other layout as well as all the Scriptural and DSS and other references, this would be GREAT to work with in Logos but tedious to use in print form. So I do hope Logos gets the rights to this product.
I think the notes from this work would provide a great perspective: http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Annotated-New-Testament/dp/0195297709/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
[Y] This was suggested a while back, I would like to renew the suggestion.
Logos.com has a pre-publication under development => http://www.logos.com/product/30983/the-jewish-study-bible
Thankful for Complete Jewish Bible => http://www.logos.com/product/6645/complete-jewish-bible
+1 [Y] for Jewish Annotated New Testament.
Keep Smiling [:)]
+1 for Jewish Annotated New Testament. Keep Smiling
+1 for Jewish Annotated New Testament.
Keep Smiling
http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Annotated-New-Testament/dp/0195297709/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0 This was suggested a while back, I would like to renew the suggestion.
This was suggested a while back, I would like to renew the suggestion.
The chances have certainly increased tremendously, now that Logos and the OUP seem back on track again.[Y]
Now that the Jewish Study Bible is in Pre-Pub, maybe the Jewish Annotated New Testament will follow closely behind!
While we're at it, let's get their Jewish Study Bible in as well. (I've been requesting both of these for some time...) Ben Now that the Jewish Study Bible is in Pre-Pub, maybe the Jewish Annotated New Testament will follow closely behind!
Here's hoping! It's an outstanding resource.
This resource needs more attention so that Faithlife understands we really, really want this.
[Y][Y]
